Posted on 06/12/2024 9:11:51 AM PDT by Starman417
Transcript from Mark Levin video:
The federal government is being affected by a federal election, a presidential election. The entire campaign law process at the federal level is now influenced by this one court and this one state. We need to address this issue, and there's only one institution with the power to do that: the United States Supreme Court. This is the court that, if you can get your case to it and find a procedural pathway, has the national authority over a presidential election if the Constitution is violated.
You might wonder, has the Supreme Court ever intervened in a federal election when it believed the Constitution was violated? Yes, it has, in Bush v. Gore almost 24 years ago. If you read that decision, there were split decisions, but seven justices voted on the application of the Equal Protection Clause. So, what is the pathway here? My argument is that there is a violation of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. If you have been watching Fox or listening to me for six weeks, you know there are countless examples of due process violations. They are almost impossible to compile; they feel infinite.
What was the point of all these due process violations? To influence the election. How? By getting a guilty verdict. So, while you are trying to overturn that guilty verdict in one lane, you are also trying to create steps to the Supreme Court in another lane and figure out what arguments might persuade them, even if you have only a 10% chance. We want to stay as close as possible to Bush v. Gore, even though there are some differences, but the similarities are what you emphasize.
Firstly, you have a situation where a state prosecutor and a judge are seizing federal jurisdictional authority in a federal campaign, and not just any federal campaign—the most important one, the campaign for President of the United States. That's number one. Number two, you have myriad Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process violations against the Republican nominee, the former president, affecting the ability of the Republican Party, its members, donors, and the candidate himself to participate as equal participants in a presidential election.
The due process violations also affect you and me. When the candidate is unable to participate normally in a presidential campaign, it affects the voter. We don’t have access to the candidate; we can’t hear from them or meet them, which might influence our decision to support them. The fact is that the campaign is handicapped. Poll numbers going up are irrelevant; that's just a snapshot. The end result is unknown, but we do know that one campaign can campaign unfettered while the other is shackled, at least for six weeks, and that judge is not done. Depending on the appellate courts in New York, he might issue a sentencing, which is problematic. The problem is that they've created a scarlet letter for the candidate, which his opponent will use throughout the election.
This doesn’t help Donald Trump in the long run. He wouldn’t have gone through this if he had a choice. He has explained that this is corrupt and it’s affecting his campaign. As an advocate, you’re trying to get to the Supreme Court with due process issues and interference in a presidential election. You want to use the precedent from Bush v. Gore, where the Supreme Court intervened because it was a presidential election.
How do you get to the Supreme Court? You can follow New York’s rules and the federal process, but you can't wait for the entire appeal process in New York because the purpose of this case is to interfere with the election. So, you can file a writ of certiorari to ask the Supreme Court to intervene. However, the state court is not done, and there is no federal statute providing a path to the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Dershowitz thinks there’s a path to the Supreme Court, too.
Will SCOTUS turn it away saying Trump doesn’t “have standing”?
It was Trump v. Anderson where a bunch of n'er-do-wells in Colorado were trying to argue that Trump couldn't be on the ballot thanks to the 'insurrectionist' claim.
While the finding ruled that Congress was the enforcement arm of the 14th amendment's Section 3 rule, I'd submit that comments made in the Concurrence opinion bear some weight here:
"Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case."
These words were signed off by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Perhaps they'd agree that New York is trying to do the same here?
[ The gotcha here is this: the bulk of their opinion was countering the majority, which gave Congress the power of determining the 'insurrection' question. This trio might then be persuaded -- as wrong as they would be on that point -- that New York exercised a proper legal proceeding against Trump, and therefore everything is cool with them. Hopefully, there's still at least 5 votes to the contrary. ]
The problem is still procedure. The Colorado case was an appeal from the Colorado Supreme Court. Bush v. Gore was an appeal from the Florida Supreme Court. Appeals from State high courts are governed by a writ of certiori. But this would be an appeal from a NY trial court (which, ironically, is called the “supreme court” but it has a different meaning in New York).
Mark keeps making vague references to “common law writs.” Well what is this writ that allows the SCOTUS to yoink a case from a state trial court? It’s not a writ of habeas corpus, it’s not a writ of mandamus (those are the only two whose names I remember). I’d love to hear it. But I’m skeptical.
Agree: and the clock is running.
Well, sounds like a Texas State Court could seize federal jurisdictional authority over a federal US Border…..
Every swing state’s Supreme court could have stepped in when they each violated the US Const and made changes to Elector selection without state legislature approval. They did nothing.
Again there’s no “how.” Either to skip the Appellate Division or to go right to SCOTUS.
Now when the USA needs the Court more than any time since Dred Scott, the justices have abandoned their responsibilities--and the American People.
If these justices had been serving at the time, the Democratic White Primary would never have been outlawed.
Can the Supreme Court take up a case without being petitioned to do so?
CJ Roberts will not allow it. He is owned lock, stock and barrel by the deep state. Kavanaugh and ACB are compromised too in my opinion based on my observations.
It’s time for the Supremes to get involved. If we allow the present lawfare schemes to proceed and expand there will be no constitution at all. Ergo, no Supreme Court and no United States of America. In the last election the government lockdown people ran roughshod over Federalism and all established order. The Supreme Court went to sleep and allowed everything. They said you can’t complain about obvious fraud until after it happens. Once it did happen they said it was too late and besides, we the honest citizens had no standing. This was an awful black mark on our history and our sleeping Supreme Court. Shame on them and Never Again.
It’s time for the Supremes to get involved. If we allow the present lawfare schemes to proceed and expand there will be no constitution at all. Ergo, no Supreme Court and no United States of America. In the last election the government lockdown people ran roughshod over Federalism and all established order. The Supreme went to sleep and allowed everything. They said you can’t complain about obvious fraud until after it happens. Once it did happen they said it was too late and beside, we the honest citizens had no standing. This was an awful black mark on our history and our sleeping Supreme Court. Shame on them and Never Again.
bump
So, how do we tell them to ‘get involved’?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.